I agree, perhaps these internet companies would be happy if it took 15 days for
each credit card payment to take place between that company and the customer
when a new customer uses their services?
- Original Message - Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] working in
new version
In message
,
=?utf-8?B?w4FuZ2VsIEdvbnrDoWxleiBCZXJkYXNjbw==?=
wrote:
>Well, I do see the value of an option (a magic email value?) meaning "this
>entity supports the use of its network for abusive purposes and will take no
>action on any abuse report".
>
>That would save time for everyone
In message
,
Leo Vegoda wrote:
>> I will love to have in the policy that they must be investigated and acted
>upon, but what I heard from the inputs in previous versions is that having
>that in policy is too much and no way to reach consensus
>
>I don't understand the value of requiring
Well, I do see the value of an option (a magic email value?) meaning "this
entity supports the use of its network for abusive purposes and will take no
action on any abuse report".
That would save time for everyone involved, and would allow to easily block
those networks from accesing ours!
In message <55d65bf8-a430-4bdc-ae58-63ff3dca4...@consulintel.es>,
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
>Section 2.0 bullet point #2. What's wrong with web forms?
>
>If I need to use a web form, which is not standard, for every abuse report...
OHHH! Your proposal did not make it at all
Hi Randy,
As I just said, ideally we should ask for abuse-c reports to be procesed, but I
know many folks don't like it.
But at least, we need to make sure that if you have an abuse-c, it is a "real"
and "working" one so you're able to actually send the reports there. If
ignored, that's
Hi Ronald,
El 13/1/20 22:34, "Ronald F. Guilmette" escribió:
In message <6afc7d17-bac4-464c-8af8-2ad852d39...@consulintel.es>,
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
>I'm happy to hear other inputs, stats, data, etc.
Having only just read the proposal, my comments are few:
Hi Leo,
El 13/1/20 18:16, "Leo Vegoda" escribió:
Hi Jordi, all,
On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 6:58 AM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg
wrote:
Hi all,
I'm working in a new version of the proposal 2019-04 (Validation of
"abuse-mailbox").
In the last discussion phase, the only
In message <6afc7d17-bac4-464c-8af8-2ad852d39...@consulintel.es>,
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
>I'm happy to hear other inputs, stats, data, etc.
Having only just read the proposal, my comments are few:
I do not understand parst of this, specifically:
Section 2.0 bullet point #2. What's
well, not exactly as i see it. abuse-c: is the op's way of saying
"please send any abuse related information here." it is not a legal or
social contract to act on it (and i suspect that next year the wannabe
net police will want to enumerate exactly *how* they must act in 93
different
Hi Jordi, all,
On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 6:58 AM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg <
anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm working in a new version of the proposal 2019-04 (Validation of
> "abuse-mailbox").
>
> In the last discussion phase, the only detailed response to this
11 matches
Mail list logo
